gno.law

Leroy Willis, Jr. v. Steve Ritter

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 08-55640 · 2010-03-30 · Unpublished

Leroy WILLIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve RITTER, Chief Medical Officer; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Area
other
Panel
Mary M. Schroeder (author), Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Harry Pregerson

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 30 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEROY WILLIS, Jr., No. 08-55640 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:04-cv-02303-WQH- JMA v. STEVE RITTER, Chief Medical Officer; MEMORANDUM * et al., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2010 ** Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Leroy Willis, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

tk/Research violated the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 241-42 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Willis’s deliberate indifference claim because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether treatment Willis received was medically unacceptable. See id. at 242 (recognizing that a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

Willis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Willis’s motion requesting a settlement conference is denied.

AFFIRMED.

tk/Research 2 08-55640

Cited by